beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not reach the conclusion of the crime of rape on the ground that there was no misunderstanding of facts and there was no inserting of the sexual organ.
B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of four years, five years of information disclosure, five years of notice information notification, and ten years of electronic device attachment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the testimony of the witness D, the victim, and the record of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, and consistently stated to the purport that inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into his own sexual organ, ② the defendant was admitted not only when he was investigated by the prosecutor, but also the fact that he inserted his sexual organ into the victim’s sexual organ in the victim’s sexual organ; ③ the victim did not want punishment; and ③ In light of the fact that the victim did not want punishment, the victim can be recognized the fact that the Defendant inserted the Defendant’s sexual organ in the victim’s sexual organ during the victim’s sexual organ, and thus, the crime of this case was completed.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
B. In the process of the lower court’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant agreed to pay 2 million won to the victim. Accordingly, the victim expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished during the lower court’s decision, and furthermore, the victim still wishes to have the Defendant punished even though the victim appeared as a witness due to partial denial of the instant crime, as seen earlier.